IGF CultureWatch

Let's say you and your partner live in D.C. and are thinking of trading in your domestic partnership for a California wedding. Your heart says: Marry while you can. If it's good enough for Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, it's good enough for you.

If you've done your homework, your head might say: But you'll have trouble getting a divorce if it doesn't work out, because the state has a residency requirement for that; and California is a community property state. Besides, there is no telling when your marriage will be recognized back home, where the city's congressional overlords are bipartisan in their opposition to marriage equality.

But you're in love, and there's been enough waiting. Del and Phyllis have waited more than fifty years. Many couples arranging trips to the coast this summer are in longstanding, well-tested relationships. When you marry, your love is its own authority, your mutual commitment no one else's to give. If you have that with someone, you are already married in the truest sense of the word. What you seek in California is to make it legal.

And there's the rub. How will you get your marriage recognized in D.C.? If Mayor Adrian Fenty and his attorney general are not ready to defy Congress, will you go to court? D.C. judges are appointed by the president, not the mayor, and D.C. courts ruled against same-sex marriage in the 1990s.

In a recent interview, one reporter essentially asked Fenty why the city did not act now based on optimistic predictions about the November elections. Fenty wisely avoided putting the cart before the horse.

Last week, a coalition of leading marriage equality advocates including Lambda Legal, Freedom to Marry, ACLU, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders and the Equality Federation said in a joint statement, "Pushing the federal government before we have a critical mass of states recognizing same-sex relationships or suing in states where the courts aren't ready is likely to get us bad rulings. Bad rulings will make it much more difficult for us to win marriage, and will certainly make it take much longer."

Same-sex couples have already lost cases in Arizona, Indiana, Washington State, New York, and Maryland. In 2005, a gay couple provoked threats from Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) by trying to get their Massachusetts marriage recognized in D.C. As I said at the time, taking a damn-the-consequences approach is the political equivalent of sailing down the Potomac on a flaming barge. It would be one thing if such decisions affected only the couples making them, but those who press ill-advised cases are taking the rest of us with them.

Enhancements to D.C's domestic partnership law already give registered partners nearly all the legal protections of marriage that a state can grant. We are blocked at the federal level by the Defense of Marriage Act. Even Del and Phyllis will get none of the federal benefits of marriage such as joint tax filing or Social Security.

Still, it will not do to say, as some do, "What's in a word?" The answer is: Everything. In New Jersey, a special commission reported in February that civil unions create a "second-class status." To cite one example, self-insured companies are regulated by federal, rather than state, law, and many refuse to provide health insurance to civilly-unionized partners. By the way, isn't it awkward talking about civil unions? Marriage requires no explanation, and thus has a built-in advantage over any alternative.

It is precisely because the fight for marriage equality is so important that we should wage it smartly and responsibly, which means working together. As last week's joint statement said, "We need to choose the courts and legislatures where we have the best chance of winning." In the meantime, all of us should be telling our stories and making our case to help move public opinion and lay the groundwork for future victories.

Until we get a federal version of the California ruling, married same-sex couples traveling from state to state will be in a legal no-man's-land. It is a profound injustice that will take more than rash actions to defeat. Let's stop demanding shortcuts and cooperate in the slow and steady work of making real and lasting change. Right now we have an initiative to defeat in California, to preserve the victory there.

June brings pride parades, which brings out drag queens in bright sunlight.

I don't envy anyone wearing pancake makeup, a wig, heels and pantyhose in 90-degree weather. I particularly don't envy drag queens, who-like other gender non-conformists in our society-suffer more than their share of unfair criticism.

A reader named Clyde writes, "I think drag is comparable to blackface minstrelsy. Whether it's men performing as women, or whites performing in blackface, caricaturing and making fun of groups of people perpetuates stereotypes."

There are at least two critical claims here. One is that drag caricatures-and thus makes fun of-groups of people, and the other is that drag perpetuates stereotypes. Let's consider each in turn.

While it's possible for a drag performance to make fun of women, misogyny is not essential to, or even typical of, drag. True, drag often involves exaggerated personas, but the point doesn't seem to be to mock women, but rather to revel in a particular kind of feminine glamour. For that reason, the analogy to minstrelsy falls short.

But what about the "bitchy" personalities adopted by some drag queens? Again, intentions and context matter. If the point is cruelty, then it's wrong. But mockery, and even bitchiness, can have its place in entertainment. Unless one objects to Joan Rivers-type humor altogether, it's difficult to make the case for objecting to it in drag performances.

The other part of Clyde's objection is related: it's that drag perpetuates stereotypes. There are multiple potential stereotypes at work here: that gay men are effeminate, that gay men want to be women, that gay men are bitchy, that gay men are excessively concerned about their appearance, that women are bitchy, that women are excessively concerned about their appearance, or that gay and transgender are the same thing.

A stereotype is an overgeneralization about a group. It may be negative, but it needn't be (consider "All Asians are good at math.")

I don't doubt that drag contributes to stereotypes. But I don't think the appropriate response to the problem is to reject drag queens. They're not responsible for others' ignorance, and in particular, for others' tendency to generalize from a sample of drag queens to most gay men (or most women).

Certainly, it's important to portray our community-indeed, our overlapping communities-accurately and fairly. And historically, the majority of media images portraying the GLBT community have focused on an unrepresentative minority of that community.

As someone who came out in the late 1980's, growing up in a rather straitlaced suburb, I'm especially sensitive to that problem. At the time, there were few if any images of the GLBT community that I could relate to, and so I convinced myself that I wasn't one of "them."

But the way to combat this distortion is not to silence the divas among us. The way to combat it is for the rest of us "plain" homosexuals to make our presence known.

As for drag queens: if someone wants to don a sequined gown and lip-synch to "Over the Rainbow," far be it from me to stand in her way. (I use the feminine pronoun deliberately.) If other people think that her behavior says something about me or about gays in general, it's my job (not hers) to correct them. And I will correct those people, not because there's something wrong with the drag queen, but because she's who she is and I'm who I am. She speaks for herself, and I for myself.

If I were a drag queen, I might break into a La Cage aux Folles number right now. Instead, I want to conclude on a note of gratitude-to a particular drag queen whose name I've long forgotten.

I was quite young when I ventured into my first gay bar. I was clearly out of my element. Noticing my nervousness as I stood alone against the wall, a drag queen approached me. "How old are you, honey?"

"Nineteen," I replied sheepishly.

"Honey, there are hairpieces in this bar that are older than that!" she quipped back.

She made me laugh, and so I began to relax. Then she introduced me to several other patrons-including other young nervous preppy boys like me. I'm sure she realized I could relate to them more easily than to her. It was a simple act of kindness, and I recall it warmly.

Ironically, it was a drag diva who helped this "plain" homosexual find his voice. Wherever you are, thanks.

The May 15 decision by the California Supreme Court overturning the state's ban on same-sex marriage is clearly major news for all of us. It was a robust, comprehensive decision that examined nearly all the traditional arguments against permitting same-sex marriage and found them wanting.

The court said, "In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry-and their central importance to an individual's opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society-the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation."

Specifically, the court pointed out that (1) allowing gays only a differently named relationship (such as "civil unions") will "impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples," (2) given the prejudice that gays have historically faced, forbidding them the word "marriage" would likely be viewed as an official view that their relationships are of lesser stature, and (3) calling gay relationships by a different name could perpetuate the view that gays and gay couples are "second-class citizens."

The decision is significant for several reasons. The majority included three justices appointed by Republicans and the court's lone Democratic appointee and was written by Republican-appointed Chief Justice Ronald George. And the California court is regarded as influential since other state courts sometimes look to it for precedents and judicial reasoning.

Even more important, the court drew an explicit parallel between government bans on interracial marriage and gay marriage, citing its own 1948 decision striking down California's ban on interracial marriage, a decision far in advance of the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court's decision striking down all state prohibitions on interracial marriage.

Perhaps most important in the long run, observing that marriage was a fundamental constitutional right, the court-a first for a high court-invoked a demanding justification for discriminatory treatment of different groups called "strict scrutiny" and found that the state government's rationale for denying gays the word and status of "marriage" could not pass that test.

The three dissents do not seem to be up to snuff. They all argue, among other things, that the decision violates the separation of powers and constitutes judicial overreach. The court should have left an important matter like gay marriage to the political process, they argue.

But, of course, the California legislature has already passed bills instituting gay marriage-not once but twice. But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both bills, saying that the issue should be settled by the state Supreme Court.

The court had already stated that the legislature could not make an interpretive end run around a popularly approved proposition banning gay marriage, by claiming that it applied only to recognition of out-of-state gay marriages. So the issue faced, if not an impasse, at least a complicated legal situation. So in a way the court may have felt pressured to rule.

For partners who have been together for many years, marriage must feel like a long-delayed state certification of the worthiness and legitimacy of their relationship, just as the state did for their parents and grandparents. For young gays, however, who are early in the first throes of romantic love with a new partner, marriage may be a dangerous temptation.

How many young gays do we all know who claimed they were deeply in love with a new partner, only to lose interest in a few months and go off in search of a new partner? To be sure, some youthful attachments do endure, but a prolonged period of getting to know each other seems desirable. Young people should remember the old adage, "Marry in haste, repent at leisure."

California's constitution is the most "populist" in the country, allowing a simple majority of voters to institute state policies, recall state officials-and reverse Supreme Court decisions. What gay Californians face now is an initiative to undo the court's decision and once again prohibit gays from marrying.

So California gays now have the task of gearing up for an acrimonious and expensive fight to preserve gay marriage. Gays may well lose. Eight years ago slightly more than 61 percent of California voters approved just such a ban. Since then, public opinion has slowly moved in the direction of support for gay marriage, but by barely one percent or less a year. Probably not enough.

So the pro-marriage campaign had better be a good one, cogent and well-thought out. Examine it carefully before you respond to the myriad of fundraising appeals we will all soon be getting.